NA TURE 



[May 9, 



1 



1907 I 



For nearly forty years I have practised as a land 

 surveyor in Australia, and through my professional duties 

 I have been much in contact with the aborigines over all 

 the eastern half of this continent. In my youth I became 

 fascinated with the study of local ethnology, and my 

 enthusiasm has never flagged since, so that I can claim 

 10 be no tyro in the science. Having had exceptional 

 opportunities of studying my subject on the spot, 1 claim 

 a little consideration. More than one hundred of my con- 

 tributions have already been published by various scientific 

 societies in Australia, England, France, Prussia, Austria, 

 and the United States, so that my work has met with 

 some appreciation. 1 mention these few facts about 

 myself, not egotistically, but as bona fides, because 

 Australia is so far removed from the centre of scientific 

 civilisation that a quiet worker is apt to be overlooked 

 unless he presents his credentials. 



Now, as regards the " ignoring " referred to by the 

 reviewer. Dr. Howitt docs not mention me in his book 

 published in 1904, but he reports, at p. 92, the names 

 Kulpuru and Tiniwa as phratries of the Yantrawanta 

 tribe. He omits to say, in fine he " ignores," that I re- 

 ported these same phratry names in 1899,' and again in 

 1900.- .At p. 138 he says that " Tiniwa is the same as 

 Kararu and Kulpuru as Matter!," but he " ignores" that 

 I reported this self-same equivalence in 1900." At p. 107 

 he stumbled across the word Mukulu (my muggulu), which 

 he mistook for a phratry name instead of a blood division, 

 a thing he had apparently never heard of. At p. 211, in 

 speaking of the Wiradjuri sociology, he says that Ippai 

 can marry Matha as well as Kubbitha, but he " ignores " 

 my report to the same effect in 1896, eight years before.* 



Then again, in his account of the Dora ceremony (my 

 Toara or Doara), at pp. 599-606, Dr. Howitt " ignores " 

 that I described that rite in January, 1900.^ If he did not 

 avail himself of my work, which appeared four vears 

 earlier than his, then there is a wondrous agreement 

 in our details. 



And yet again, Dr. Howitt at p. 44 gives a sketch-map 

 showing the habitat of certain tribes in South Australia, 

 but he " ignores " that I published substantially the same 

 map in 1900," four years earlier. In comparing the two 

 maps and the e.\planatory letterpress accompanying mine 

 we observe a marvellous coincidence. Many other 

 examples could be cited, but exigencies of space force 

 us to pass them over for the present. 



I do not particularly object to all the above instances 

 of " ignoring," because they have the effect of confirming 

 the accuracy of my earlier reports ; my objection applies 

 to the damaging way in which reference is made to them 

 in Nature. 



Regarding Prof. Spencer's " footnote," I refer your 

 readers to my reply thereto in the Queensland Geographical 

 Journal, vol. xx., pp. 73-5. No doubt he was verv much 

 cut to find that I had forestalled him by describing the 

 eight sections of the VVombaia (his Umbaia) tribe in 

 1898 ; ■ that I had dealt with the Binbingha sociologv in 

 1899;* and that I had reported the sociology of the 

 Chingalee in 1900,° with a comprehensive map showing the 

 location of these and other tribes. The publication in 

 1901 of my " Ethnological Notes on the Aboriginal Tribes 

 of the Northern Territory"" probably increased his irrita 

 tion and disappointment. 



Fault is found in the review with my statement that 

 nothing important has been added to our knowledge of the 

 Kamilaroi organisation since the time of Ridley and 

 Bridgeman. I beg to repeat that Ridley showed that 

 Ippai married Kubbitha or Ippatha, and that there were 

 totems with female descent. He also gave many illustra- 



> Journ. Roy. Soc. N.S.W.ilcs, xxxiii., loS ; Pioc. Amer. Philos. Soc, 

 Philadelphia, xxxviii., 79. 



- Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, xxxix., 83. 



3 O/. <r//., p. 84. 

 ,„■' .*"'"''=^" Anlhropologi'it, ix. (1896), 413; Journ. Roy. Soc. N.S. 

 Wales, XXXI., 173-174. 



° .Vmencan .^nlhropologiftCisoo). ii.. New Series, 159-144. 



*» Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. xxxix., 90-93. 



7 Journ. Koy. Soc N.S.Wales, xxii., 75; Proc Amer. Philo?. Soc, 



» Proc Amer. Philos. Soc, xxxviii., 77. 

 y American Anthropologist, ii.. New Series, 405, wit h map. 

 10 Queensland Geographical Journal (1901), xvi., 69-90. 



tions of the intermarriages of the four divisions. Bridge- 

 man stated that certain pairs of sections had a phratry 

 name as well. I am still of opinion that nothing new 

 or important had since been added bv anyone until I 

 reported the Blood and Shade divisions. The reviewer 

 mentions Dr. Howitt's book, but his work is merely 

 confirmatory of the previous reports of Ridley and 

 Bridgeman. 



It is stated in the review that Mrs. Langloh Parker's 

 phratry names are identical with my Blood divisions ; such 

 is not the case, because she mistook the names of the 

 Blood divisions for the phratries. I have known the 

 Yualeai (Mrs. Parker's Euahlayi) tribe for many years, 

 and have been through most of their country. When 

 publishing a grammar and vocabulary of their language 

 in 1902 ' I staled that their social organisation and 

 initiation ceremonies are the same as those of the 

 Kamilaroi, thus anticipating much of Mrs. Parker's book, 

 whic;h did not appear until 1905. 



Much more could be added, but it is thought that 

 enough instances have been given to show that in original 

 research among the .Australian blacks I have often been 

 first in the field ; that probably my published results have 

 been used and " ignuied " by others; and, above all, that 

 my work will stand the most rigorous criticism. 



I have explained to the editor of Nature the cause of 

 the delay in fhy replying to the review in question. 



R. H. Mathews. 



If I have done Mr. Mathews an injustice in my notice 

 of his book, I can only express my regret for it and 

 offer such reparation as a statement of my present view 

 of the matter may make. 



In directing attention to the fact that Mr. Mathews is 

 ignored by Dr. Howitt and Prof. Baldwin Spencer, I 

 merely stated a fact ; if I had seen his reply I would have 

 mentioned it. As to the reason why he is ignored I know 

 nothing; a closer examination of Mr. Mathews's con- 

 tributions than I had at the time of writing the notice 

 been able to make leads me to think much better of his 

 work; his readiness to acknowledge and withdraw his 

 errors is worthy of the highest praise ; and if his work 

 is ignored solely on the ground that it is untrustworthy, it 

 seems to me that this readiness is a sufficient reply to 

 his critics. If there are further reasons, it is for Mr. 

 Mathews's fellow-workers in Australia to state what they 

 are. I personally have never heard of any further reason, 

 and it seems to me that we in England are entitled to 

 have one, if one exists. I may add that in my recent 

 work, "Kinship and Marriage in Australia," I quoted 

 Mr. Mathews as freely as any other author ; at the same 

 time, I have expressed dissent from some of his inferences. 



Mr. Mathews makes good in the foregoing remarks his 

 claim to priority on many points. His discovery of the 

 " blood " divisions, of which Dr. Howitt knows nothing, 

 seems to me especially iinportant. In order to realise 

 exactly what the situation is, we need a complete genealogy 

 of a tribe for several generations back, showing both 

 phratry, class, blood, and totem names of each individual. 

 If Mr. Mathews can provide this material we shall owe 

 him much; failing that, I hope it may be possible for 

 some trained anthropologist, familiar with the modern 

 genealogical method, to investigate the matter. I may 

 add that Mr. Mathews has invited me to verify in person 

 all the statements in his works which he bases on his 

 own observations ; this in reply to the review which called 

 forth the above protest is surely a guarantee of good 

 faith. I much regret that no money is forthcoming in 

 England for anthropological work ; if the financial part 

 of the business could be settled, I would gladly accept Mr. 

 Mathews's offer. 



Nothing was further from my mind than to hurt Mr. 

 Mathews's feelings, and if my notice was somewhat sharp 

 in tone, I must plead in excuse the somewhat emphatic 

 self-assertion of the passages I quoted. I hope that any 

 future criticisms of mine will be such as to call for no 

 protest on Mr. Mathews's part. 



NORTHCOTE W. TllO.MAS. 



NO. 1958, VOL. 76] 



Jo 



Roy. S c. N.S.Wales, 



